In exchange for her cooperation, Maryland prosecutors have offered Ria Ramkissoon a reduced charge in the case against Queen Antoinette who leads a West Baltimore cult known as One Mind Ministries. Ria, and other members of the group, starved Ria's son to death because he did not say 'Amen' when he was directed to do so. It's troubling, but probably no worse than similar deals made in courtrooms across the nation every day.
What's really troubling, at least initially, is the story of a woman willing to sacrifice her son because her faith demanded it. But is Ria Ramkissoon's story any worse than the story of a man who waits his whole life to have a child, and then, when he finally does, he carries that child to a mountain top where he prepares him as an offering to the god who tells him to do so? Is her story worse than that of another father who sends his only son into the world just so he can watch him suffer and die an agonizing death?
There "must" be a difference though, because the Ria is a member of a cult and the other stories are those of Abraham's binding of Isaac in the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus' sojourn on Earth as recorded in the New Testament. And those are the founding stories not of cults, but of religions, right? Well, let's see.
While the passage of time is probably the only way to distinguish between extreme religious conviction and delusion, the same modest claim need not be made for the distinction between a religion and a cult. That line can be demarcated with relative ease, but not in the ways that it usually is.
It's not a function of the too often proffered liberal twaddle that cults are mean and harsh, while real religion is gentle and sweet. It's not, as theological conservatives are want to argue, that their faith is true because "God really said what we believe but not that other stuff." And it's not about it all being the same as the rabid secularists love to claim.
The distinction between cults and religions cannot be based on age, with the new kids on the block labeled cults and the old ones, religions. After all every religion has a starting point and each tradition was once considered an innovation. For example, when early Jews proclaimed their faith in one God, and later on early Christians claimed that Jesus was that god's only begotten son, their contemporaries considered each group to be lunatic cultists.
Nor can the distinction between cult and religion be a matter of popular acceptance. Both history and the contemporary world are filled with cult-like practices that are adopted by millions. And many small groups pursue spiritual fulfillment in ways that are not likely to ever gain mass acceptance. So where is the bright line which marks the divide between cults and religions?
Cults are typically defined by five characteristics. First, cults tend to centralize power in the hands of a single individual or small group that is considered beyond questions. Second, they treat all questions about the group and its beliefs as intolerable challenges to the group's authority and authenticity. Third, they demean all those who do not share their beliefs and sow fear and mistrust amongst their believers about all such people. Fourth, they typically cut off all or most opportunities for members to interact freely with those outside the group. And finally, they take revenge upon those who choose to leave the group, in ways which include, cutting them off from all relationships with those who remain inside, confiscation of material goods and even physical harm.
The fact that pretty much every religion has done all of these things at some point in history of the group means the while the line between cults and religions is clear, it is not fixed or static. In fact, most cults have the capacity to move past the kind of ugly behavior which defines them as a cult. And more importantly, most religions can and do slip into cult-like behavior from time to time. When they remain steadfast in such behavior, however old their tradition, or however popular, they become a cult.
Cult or religion? To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mother, cults are as the cultists do. And the same can be said for religions and their followers. Cult and religion are labels that swings like a saloon door and the trick is to know on which side any of us stands.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Good definition, and good observation about established religious groups sometimes crossing the line.
On a related note - why do you think many people (myself included) believe things about ancient religions, but discount similar things about contemporary or recent ones? For example, I recently visited a Mormon site upstate. It is hard for me to understand how so many people believe that Joseph Smith was given golden tablets by an angel, yet my Jewish tradition accepts and promotes even more outlandish things?
You did not define a cult, you defined an abusive relationship; these are the exact same charcteristics.
By definition, a "cult" is an off-shoot of a larger religious group. Its a partner to "sect". The way I describe them to Confirmation Classes is that a religion is like a large room, a cafeteria for example. A sect is a sect-ion of the room, as for jocks, geeks, or band freaks. A cult is a group that meets in a room ("Cult" is latin for "room or chamber") off of or away from the cafeteria. Now there is potential for abuse anytime a groups splits away, even for the best of intents. Any size group can succumb to charismatic but abusive leadership. But in the same way any size group can lead a beneficial reformation. Your list of ways people are abused and manipulated is important. But it should not be assumed that any one sort of group is necessarily corrupt or magnanimous.
Having seen the term cult so misused, most often ued to label beliefs that you don't agree with. May I suggest this defintion: A Cult is Someone Else's Deaply Held Beliefs. This defintion has no judgedmen attached.
"May I suggest this defintion: A Cult is Someone Else's Deaply Held Beliefs"
Bingo. Finally, someone who gets it. The author has a hard time understanding the maxim "one man's religion is another man's cult."
Who uses the word, "cult"? That's simple! It's used by people not in the cult. You see, no one thinks of their religion as a "cult." Rather, the word is used by people not in the target religion for the purpose of demeaning that specific religion and hurting its legitimacy. For example, if you think Mormonism is a "cult," then that tells me TWO things: (1) you aren't Mormon; and (2) you disapprove or dislike Mormonism.
The word "cult" is also highly offensive. If you go up to anyone of any religion and tell them their path to salvation is nothing more than a cult, you will have just offended that person.
Most importantly, there is no such thing as a "cult test" that seperates religions from cults that has any binding authority. And for some unknown reason, the author arrogantly assumes his "five characteristics of cults" is somehow authoratative and legally binding on all mankind. No offense, but my 6 year old nephew could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a "cult test" that has much authority as the author's test. The author's test is nothing more than a list of generic stereotypes associated with people who dislike a religion.
The word "cult" serves ONE purpose: it allows your listener to know that you don't like a certain religion. You see, we live in a society where religious intolerance is unacceptable and looked down upon. No one wants to think of themself as a religious bigot. So if you really hate a religion, how can you openly hate it and not be labeled a bigot? Easy! Downgrade it to a cult. So if someone accuses you of being a bigot, you can say, "I'm not a religious bigot at all because is a 'cult' not a 'religion.'" It's a lot easier to go to bed at night knowing your hatred is directed at battling an "evil cult" instead of a "true religion."
The word "cult" is nothing more than an artifical means of disguising religious intolerance behind a cloak of justification. The author's test is a complete sham that does nothing but further religious intolerance by making people think that it is a FACT that "cults" exist. Have you ever heard of someone who hated a religion and didn't think it was a "cult"??
My dad think islam is a cult. My brother thinks only islam is a cult. My sister is an atheist and thnks all religions are cult. My mother thinks mormonism is a cult. So who's right? None of them are right or wrong because whether something is a cult is an OPINION, not a FACT. Something this author fails to realize.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.